[Gig]

Hi Looper. No argument from me with devolving social security back to the individual, if it is done correctly: 1) the individual must control, 2) must be mandatory withholding that the individual self-directs, 3) investment options are pre-defined within certain catagories that can be "re-balanced" periodically, and 4)the account assets are owned by the individual and can be transferred upon death to beneficiaries.

These would be the major provisions for a new social security program, IMHO.

Now, so far as the private citizen being responsible for their future? They already are. Social Security is not much to live on in your retirement years and, as far as I kow, no one is forcing anyone to contribute to ANYTHING except the SSA.

[Tauzero]

"1) the individual must control, 2) must be mandatory withholding that the individual self-directs, 3) investment options are pre-defined within certain catagories that can be "re-balanced" periodically, and 4)the account assets are owned by the individual and can be transferred upon death to beneficiaries."

Oh yeah, that sounds like a really attractive program. </sarcasm>

[wjcsux]

We ought to have a system similar to what is in place in Chile. Agusto Pinochet had one of his advisors (one of Milton Friedman's students), set their retirement system up based on free market principles. The government mandates 10% of a persons gross wages be contributed to a retirement plan that has been approved by the government. The investor can move his/ her money around and has control of it. This investment isn't taxed. This system has been in place since the mid 70's, and has replaced their version of SSI. The result? The citizens of Chile have their own secure retirement system that isn't under government control.